Let’s keep an eye on the shellfish initiative

It is interesting to contemplate how the new National Shellfish
Initiative, announced in June, and the Washington Shellfish
Initiative, announced last week, could change things in Puget
Sound.

Newton Morgan of the Kitsap
County Health District collects a dye packet from Lofall Creek in
December of 2010. This kind of legwork may be the key to tracking
down pollution in Puget Sound.Kitsap Sun photo by Meegan Reid

One of the most encouraging things is an attempt to expand
Kitsap County’s Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC)
Program to other counties, with increased funding for cleaning up
the waters. Check out the story I wrote for
last Friday’s Kitsap Sun, in which I describe the
search-and-destroy mission against bacterial pollution.

As most Water Ways readers know, I’ve been following the ongoing
monitoring and cleanup effort by the Kitsap County Health District
for years with the help of Keith Grellner, Stuart Whitford, Shawn
Ultican and many others in the district’s
water quality program. In fact, just two weeks ago, I discussed
what could be a turnaround for a chronic pollution problem in
Lofall Creek, a problem that has taken much perseverance to
resolve. (See
Kitsap Sun, Dec. 2.) Unfortunately, the story is far from
over.

I’ve talked about the importance of old-fashioned legwork in
tracking down pollution, and I’ve suggested that other local
governments use some of their stormwater fees or implement such
fees for monitoring of their local waters. See
Water Ways, June 30, for example.

Water free of fecal pollution has benefits for humans and other
aquatic creatures. Thankfully, Washington State Department of
Health’s shellfish program is
careful about checking areas for signs of sewage before certifying
them as safe for shellfish harvesting. Maybe the new shellfish
initiative will allow the state to open beds that have been closed
for years. That’s what happened in Yukon Harbor, where more than
900 acres of shellfish beds were reopened in 2008. (See
Kitsap Sun, Sept. 25, 2008).

Certifying areas as safe for shellfish harvesting means that
waterfront property owners are safe to enjoy the bounty of their
own beaches. It also offers an opportunity for commercial growers
to make money and contribute to the state’s economy.

Of course, this does not mean that intensive shellfish-growing
operations ought to be expanded to every clean corner of Puget
Sound, any more than large-scale crop farming or timber harvesting
should be allowed to take over the entire landscape.

Some environmentalists have expressed concern that the
Washington Shellfish Initiative could become a boondoggle for
commercial shellfish growers. Laura Hendricks of the Sierra Club’s
Marine Ecosystem Campaign sent me an e-mail noting these concerns
about the expansion of aquaculture:

“Washington State has more native species listed as endangered
than any other state in the USA. We see no mention of the adverse
impacts in this initiative on nearshore habitat, birds and juvenile
salmon.

“Governor Gregoire and the various speakers failed to mention
that ALL of the pending shoreline aquaculture applications they
want to ‘streamline’ are for industrial geoduck aquaculture, not
oysters. Red tape is not what is delaying these applications…

“Shellfish industry lobbyists who pushed for this expansion are
silent on the following three serious threats to our fisheries
resources, forage fish, birds and salmon:

“1. Shellfish consume fisheries resources (zooplankton —
fish/crab eggs and larvae) according to peer reviewed studies. A
DNR study documented that forage fish eggs did not just stay buried
high on the beach, but were found in the nearshore water column.
Continuing to allow expansion of unnatural high densities of
filtering shellfish in the intertidal “nursery,” puts our fisheries
resources at risk.

“2. The shellfish growers place tons of plastics into Puget
Sound in order to expand aquaculture where it does not naturally
grow…

3. Mussel rafts are documented to reduce dissolved oxygen
essential for fish and are known in Totten Inlet to be covered in
invasive tunicates with beggiatoa bacteria found underneath…”

Ashley Ahearn of KUOW interviewed Laura Hendricks, and you can
hear her report on
EarthFix.

Have intensive shellfish farms in Puget Sound gone too far in
their efforts to exploit the natural resources of our beaches? Can
shellfish farmers make money without undue damage to the
environment? Which practices are acceptable, which ones should be
banned, and which areas are appropriate for different types of
aquaculture?

Other research in our region is needed as well, although it is
clear that environmental trade-offs will be part of the deal
whenever commercial interests cross paths with natural systems. For
a discussion about this issue, check out the executive summary of
the NOAA-funded publication Shellfish
Aquaculture and the Environment (PDF 4.2 mb), edited by Sandra
E. Shumway.

Needless to say, we’ll be keeping an eye on this process for
years to come.

4 thoughts on “Let’s keep an eye on the shellfish initiative”

Another thorough piece of journalism, Chris. While I am very skeptical of anything that claims to ‘speed permitting’ (because the only groups slowing permitting seem to be environmental non-profits trying their best to get regulators to not just cave to industry pressure), I do hope that there is some benefit to the Puget Sound ecosystem from all this. I do feel that our governmental officials have good intentions, but there unfortunately seems to be truth to the old maxim that ” the road to Hell is” paved with them, good intentions I mean…

Why was the public not invited to participate in the shellfish initiative? Puget Sound is a public resource, yet here you have an initiative that did not include public input. I see there was Taylor Shellfish and the tribes, the two corporations with arguably the most to gain financially from aquaculture. Also conspicuously not mentioned is the fact that the “permit quagmire” referred to by Taylor’s Bill Dewey is regarding geoduck aquaculture and mussel rafts, and not oysters or restoration. The folks down here in South Sound understand very well that the geoducks and mussel rafts are the two forms of aquaculture that Taylor wants to expand, and we also understand that these two forms of aquaculture are unsightly and cause environmental harm. I, for one, don’t appreciate my tax dollars spent to promote an industry with the lie that it’s good for the environment. If it was so wonderful, why not mention geoduck culture and mussel rafts at the ceremony in Shelton? I’m sorry to say I don’t trust Gov. Gregoire on this and I don’t trust the Department of Commerce (NOAA, Lubchenko) either. Everyone wants clean water and to restore native oysters, but we don’t need a big ceremony at Taylor Shellfish headquarters to do that. This is clearly an attempt by Taylor to undercut the citizens that don’t want aquaculture filling up Puget Sound.

That’s an excellent thought Dan, and one I overlooked. Where was the public in this, except being “represented” by government? While I personally know and have respect for Talyor, they are a business, and like all business, have their own interests at stake, which do overlap on getting clean water. (I run a business too and love to see government take steps to help my industry). But in this case, it’s very worrisome about this “read between the lines” notion of “speeding permitting” as a goal. We of Jefferson County, and by that I mean even the County Commissioners, are currently fighting the State to allow us to do what has already been allowed in other counties, and ban net pen aquaculture. Only the State and the aquaculture industry support continuing this activity, all the local state holders have come out against it. So there is another example of who is controlling things at the state level.